Re: [Netconf] RFC6470bis vs New draft on NMDA Base Event

"Carey, Timothy (Nokia - US)" <> Tue, 19 June 2018 13:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D1E4131220 for <>; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 06:04:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kWEk014ZdSzb for <>; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 06:04:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7E20131142 for <>; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 06:01:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=selector1-nokia-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=uwHupSJxk33wV5J/Hc4oYjPwOC4LLXTtnxAlpwSzfbY=; b=kTaUdSZ6hnG3AIIvf3PLYtRwbw4VRieZMCx/9NucItbQgXFKmqYgwmWRLxY7iQgA/5wf6JnJ/VWHCr4papV+xIlC/4U0Et+DhUybW/ey8oAXvP++vhKX5YPScXfH0g+m1BKd1LEoNHYlnm+MeqqkHtpDUuABZWP+cy5D9Hx10KY=
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.884.15; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 13:01:12 +0000
Received: from ([fe80::f8de:60b1:a0bd:d454]) by ([fe80::f8de:60b1:a0bd:d454%8]) with mapi id 15.20.0884.010; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 13:01:12 +0000
From: "Carey, Timothy (Nokia - US)" <>
To: Qin Wu <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: RFC6470bis vs New draft on NMDA Base Event
Thread-Index: AQHUB66SAOx3jcX+d0mh9goBNd+jo6RnULTggAAELMCAADbUoA==
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 13:01:12 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is );
x-originating-ip: []
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; AM5PR0701MB2578; 7:wd+P1w8+pl0QZtEMebDprVHR98kh3ocmnJ3JRKfYg/VrglwbYBUnFsZaE865Pf1+6cSh5oUeNzfKc7Y4jc4lwF2ixeteZ9oaEPmsOneSUUs3WmNlUyViyMJNVqMATRtEduv3UNqESwox0MYxMYJveJFfr1D5xQFfyXmQPSDYqZSHqwvOJ1LUXYBV+JrOneQQE/QQcSSARIOytzCsz+ctoGG/EIOmH2II7D6hLjbU8JTFEt2BIO2eBO2x7ZCbxUsX
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SOS;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: c976fec2-d0f2-48cb-5327-08d5d5e4bbcf
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:(109105607167333); BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(7020095)(4652020)(8989080)(4534165)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990040)(5600026)(711020)(48565401081)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:AM5PR0701MB2578;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: AM5PR0701MB2578:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(158342451672863)(278428928389397)(120809045254105)(50582790962513)(82608151540597)(109105607167333);
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040522)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(3231254)(11241501184)(806099)(944501410)(52105095)(3002001)(93006095)(93001095)(10201501046)(6055026)(149027)(150027)(6041310)(20161123562045)(20161123558120)(20161123560045)(201703131423095)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123564045)(6072148)(201708071742011)(7699016); SRVR:AM5PR0701MB2578; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:AM5PR0701MB2578;
x-forefront-prvs: 07083FF734
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(39860400002)(39380400002)(396003)(366004)(376002)(346002)(51914003)(199004)(13464003)(189003)(106356001)(305945005)(4326008)(7736002)(478600001)(68736007)(74316002)(229853002)(26005)(966005)(53546011)(59450400001)(6436002)(25786009)(102836004)(6506007)(33656002)(105586002)(6116002)(8936002)(3846002)(9686003)(7696005)(76176011)(6306002)(53936002)(55016002)(476003)(81166006)(6246003)(81156014)(99286004)(316002)(114624004)(8676002)(5660300001)(486006)(446003)(66066001)(11346002)(2501003)(5250100002)(97736004)(2900100001)(14454004)(186003)(110136005)(3660700001)(86362001)(2906002)(3280700002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:AM5PR0701MB2578;; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None ( does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 9ysS4rHIvlxQdZ/UWO3PygUCARyEJf4H+BFssWZebcbPtAvTyjl/TVz1Fn2sPgqpYNQB2Ummz0eQHMvZfHwVLO2igxIfYgx94rBYcPj5D0cxTZhWtnwTlB8b0qmOdnMgTcWafJ6Nu7raosQhJ6V/hrI2RmaW5jN7VYi6IPeT9t2/5iSJyVZEIWzmRKfPaUGAWc0BOtnOWz4ZcXYOSKGujg7zqKL69/XBTIzghVhUoqm4dRPrbIXUlI9Bchaf5f7kH/V48BoQL3PhIeDS0D6Yc0nN9E/gpWd04dkcJqcRmi1fFjZwQX+UJlHUg5mQP7+eEAcLouF5cDIa+uUDEzrJoxcMjNTCsh0NlfVF/vgPW0HpVG2+Ve9avi0C7yzMT1um
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: c976fec2-d0f2-48cb-5327-08d5d5e4bbcf
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 19 Jun 2018 13:01:12.1408 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5d471751-9675-428d-917b-70f44f9630b0
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM5PR0701MB2578
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] RFC6470bis vs New draft on NMDA Base Event
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 13:04:07 -0000


It does - thanks for the explaination.


-----Original Message-----
From: Qin Wu [] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 6:46 PM
To: Carey, Timothy (Nokia - US) <>om>;
Cc: Andy Bierman <>
Subject: RE: RFC6470bis vs New draft on NMDA Base Event

My understanding is base events defined in RFC6470 is unchanged, but if we want to see base events defined in RFC6470 also applicable to New NMDA datastores, I think these existing base event may need to be updated as well, to indicate specific NMDA datastore that need to be changed, e.g., netconf-config-change However based on our analysis, netconf-config-change is only applicable to <running> and <startup> . <intended> and <operational> is read only and Can not be changed by user in a specific management session. Other base events doesn't have datastore leaf. Therefore base event defined in RFC6470 Can keep as it does. Hope this answer your question.

发件人: Carey, Timothy (Nokia - US) []
发送时间: 2018年6月19日 17:34
收件人: Qin Wu;
抄送: Andy Bierman
主题: RE: RFC6470bis vs New draft on NMDA Base Event


So if we don't bis6470 then how do we handle the datastore leaf in RFC6470 not supporting the new NMDA data stores?


-----Original Message-----
From: Qin Wu []
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 5:19 PM
Cc: Carey, Timothy (Nokia - US) <>om>; Andy Bierman <>
Subject: RFC6470bis vs New draft on NMDA Base Event

One issue raised in last meeting what need to be modified in RFC6470 to support NMDA and whether it is a good idea to make bis for RFC6470 to cover additional new event related to NMDA. 

The con:
republish YANG notifications that are not changing is not a good idea NMDA event not specific to NETCONF, although RFC6470 allows NETONF Base Event applied to non-Netconf session by setting session-id to zero.
NETCONF session without NMDA support can not understand new NMDA event.
The Pro:
One Base Event notification module cover all events which help monitor lifecycle of Netconf session change.

After discussing with RFC6470 author, we decide to separate NMDA notification from NETCONF base event notification. 
Comments or suggestions if you have different opinion.

发件人: Qin Wu
发送时间: 2018年6月19日 17:12
抄送: ''
主题: RE: New Version Notification for draft-wu-netconf-base-notification-nmda-01.txt

Hi, folks:
We rewrite NMDA Base Event draft based on last meeting discussion in the netconf session and re-scope to NMDA specific Base Event Notification definition. 
The changes include:
1. remove ietf-netconf-data-change notification which has potential overlapping with YANG push on change update mechanism.
2.Add NMDA data validation notification to keep track of the validation result of <intended> data-store and  the reason why the configuration were not applied.
3. Problem space change in the introduction.

We would like to request WG to adopt this draft. Please indicate if you like this draft or idea.
Many thanks.

发件人: []
发送时间: 2018年6月19日 16:46
收件人: Rohit R Ranade; Rohit R Ranade; Qin Wu
主题: New Version Notification for draft-wu-netconf-base-notification-nmda-01.txt

A new version of I-D, draft-wu-netconf-base-notification-nmda-01.txt
has been successfully submitted by Qin Wu and posted to the IETF repository.

Name:		draft-wu-netconf-base-notification-nmda
Revision:	01
Title:		Base Notifications for NMDA
Document date:	2018-06-19
Group:		Individual Submission
Pages:		10

   The Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) provides mechanisms to
   manipulate configuration datastores.  NMDA introduces additional
   datastores for systems that support more advanced processing chains
   converting configuration to operational state.  However, client
   applications are not able to be aware of common events pertaining to
   additional datstores, such as a data validation state change in
   NETCONF server, that may impact management applications.  This
   document updates [RFC6470] to allow a NETCONF client to receive
   additional notifications for some common system events pertaining to
   the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) defined in


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at

The IETF Secretariat